Heppell v The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

The appellant, Warrick Lesley Visser Heppell, was an admitted attorney who had ceased practising in 2007 but remained on the roll as a non‑practising attorney. After engaging in various business ventures that failed, he returned to legal practice in 2010. In January 2012, his estate was sequestrated following an ex parte application for voluntary surrender. During that application, he failed to disclose material facts, including that he was a practising attorney, the existence of substantial suretyships amounting to approximately R20 million, accurate details of his income and expenditure, and certain aspects of his matrimonial regime. The Law Society of the Northern Provinces investigated his conduct and concluded that these non‑disclosures constituted unprofessional and dishonest conduct. It applied to the Gauteng Division of the High Court to have his name struck from the roll or, alternatively, to suspend him. The High Court found him not fit and proper without sanction and suspended him from practice for six months. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale. The six‑month suspension from practice imposed by the High Court remained in force.

This case reinforces the stringent duty of full and frank disclosure owed by attorneys, particularly in ex parte applications for voluntary surrender of an estate. It affirms that sequestration combined with material non‑disclosure can justify disciplinary sanction, even absent misconduct in the handling of clients’ affairs or trust accounts. The judgment also reiterates the three‑stage disciplinary enquiry and the limited power of appellate courts to interfere with sanctions imposed by courts of first instance.